Virgin Accuses Apple of Abusing Monopoly

worm eater writes "The Register reports that VirginMega (Virgin Group's online music venture in France) is asking the French antitrust authorities to force Apple to license the FairPlay DRM. If France agrees with Virgin, will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard, or will it be the downfall of the mighty iTunes Music Store?"

Comments

This Raises An Excellent Question

[ackthpt]

If France agrees with Virgin, will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard, or will it be the downfall of the mighty iTunes Music Store?"

This raises and excellent question: Is Apple a:

A) Technology (I.P.) Company
or

B) Hardware Company
or

C) Service Company

Apple started as A & B and has dabbled in C, but IMS is solidy B & C. With their deals with Motorola (iPod tech in phones) and HP (own brand of iPod) they further A & C. If FairPlay becomes the defacto standard this places them squarely in the A camp again, which actually benefits Motorola and HP, among others who make hardware for them. Will Apple ever allow the Mac line to be made outside the company again, as it was in the Jean Louis Gassée days?

While it all looks rosy for Apple, I can plainly see now how both Sony and Microsoft want to plough into this market, so they can get it all wrong, make people mad (ATRAC3? I thought it said 8 Track!) (my mPod has been 0wn3d!) and lose lots of money.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[mblase]

Will Apple ever allow the Mac line to be made outside the company again, as it was in the Jean Louis Gassée days?

When Apple licensed clones of their computers, it was intended to broaden the MacOS userbase. What happened instead was the MacOS userbase remained the same size, and Apple lost money to the clonemakers. Thus they soon rescinded the licenses and went back to doing what they always did.

Doubtless this is part of the reason Apple's reluctant to license FairPlay. As long as they control both it and the iPod hardware, they can keep the iPod/iTunes experience Insanely Great(TM) and make more money to boot. But until the iPod and iTMS actually reach monopoly levels of domination, licensing FairPlay would just decrease the quality of that experience without increasing Apple's marketshare.

Re:This Raises An Excellent Question

[harlows_monkeys]

When Apple licensed clones of their computers, it was intended to broaden the MacOS userbase. What happened instead was the MacOS userbase remained the same size, and Apple lost money to the clonemakers

Indeed, and the reason for this is that the cloners were very limited in what they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed to design their own motherboards, for example, but rather had to buy them from Apple. The rest of their design had to be approved by Apple.

So it is not surprising they failed to grow the Mac userbase, since Apple would only let them produce machines that were essentially exactly the same as Apple's Macs. One of the cloners (Power Computing, I believe) showed off at trade shows a couple prototypes, including a cool laptop back when Apple didn't have any cool PPC laptops, that would have taken the Mac to new markets, and begged Apple to allow them to sell them, but Apple said no.

Am I missing something?

[r_glen]

...will this be a blessing in disguise for Apple, making their DRM format the defacto standard

How exactly would this be a blessing in disguise? Wouldn't it just open the door to more iTunes-compatible players to compete with? Or does Apple stand to make a pretty penny by licensing FairPlay to the world?

Re:Am I missing something?

[Compenguin]

Apple doesn't have a horizontal monopoly but iTMS + iPod could be considered a vertical monopoly (also known as vertical integration). It's kind of like if Ford bought an oil company and then stipulated that all new Ford Cars could only use free gasoline or ford gasoline, and Ford gasoline could only be used in Ford approved engines. They wouldn't have a monopoly on cars or gasoline but they would be unfairly leveraging a vertical monopoly.

iPod needs WMA

[MysticalMatt517]

Truthfully I don't see the need for Apple to license their FairPlay technology as much as I see the iPod needing to support WMA. Apple has already stated that they don't make money off iTMS, but off iPod sales generated from iTMS interest. Consequently making the iPod able to play just about anything would help further increase their gravy. Most people will still end up using iTMS anyway.

It might not change much...

[brainstyle]

...at least for now. Unless Virgin can offer a music buying experience that works as seamlessly with the iPod as Apple's - since it's clear that they're trying to sell their tunes to iPod owners - then they'll still be missing the point. I suspect what most people dig most about the iTunes store is integration and ease of use. They aren't terribly concerned about file formats and rights managements schemes. Sure, some are - plenty here on Slashdot, for instance - but I doubt the average person is too concerned by that.

Plus, Apple's the cool music company right now. I just saw someone on the street this morning walking with her nice custom-made iPod purse which still clearly had an Apple logo on it, so you knew it was an iPod in there, and that she dug Apple. I suspect she'd use the iTunes store (except I'm in Canada, alas).

But then, I may be underestimating the tech literacy of the average person. I'd be glad if that were the case.

Apple's Digital Hub

[ztirffritz]

Apple is not planning on living off of the iPod for the long term goal. They are planning on building the hub of your future digital lifestyle. Digital music, movies, communication, etc. DRM is key to that goal. Apple is just funding this project with the iPod. Eventually iTMS will will either dry up or redefine the music distribution model. I think the latter. Apple will develop an iMovie (iTV?) store as well. With Airport express or a similar product they'll be able to stream files to your entertainment center. Eventually your computer will become part of your entertainment center. Who wants to pay for 24x7 Cable or satelite service if you can pay for just the progamming you want to see/hear? In the end, there will probably be Apple computers, Monitors, Amplifiers, speakers, and a multipurpose digital recorder for audio and video. Video will be pay per view while audio will be owned.

by extension?

[crono_deus]

Hrm.
Ok, so, say for instance, a compay makes software that runs on only one platform. The software is an incredible hit and fuels the sale of this platform. Other companies want this killer app on their platform. Do they have a right to force the original company to make the software for their platforms?

Draw your own conclusions, but my opinion is thusly: hells freakin' no. Say my company makes software for Apple hardware (and by extension OSX) and it's so freakin' incredible that everyone goes out and buys OSX. No on, but _no one_ has the right to force me to port my app to their platform. It's _my_ software.

I see a similar thing here: Apple has this "app" (AAC wrapped in FairPlay) and it works on the iPod. Apple hasn't stopped anyone from writing other "apps" for the iPod (within the specs of the iPod, of course, just like you'd have to write hardware specific stuff for PPC), but it shouldn't be forced to license that "app" to anyone else.
Now, it _may_ be really good for them to let other people use FairPlay, but I don't feel I have the information I need to make that call.

Muddy the DRM waters till it goes away ...

[slapphappe]

In the interests of putting an end to encryption based DRM I'm quite happy that Virgin Records sues Apple Computer (although I think their case isn't strong) -- even though I don't want Virgin selling DRM'd files either. Similarly, while I don't think much of Real, I'm happy they've reverse engineered FairPlay.

The bigger the DRM mess becomes, the less likely it is to survive.

It's absolutely not right that we're buying file formats instead of content. Anything that muddies the DRM waters, as they currently exist, works for me.

That is to say...

[FredFnord]

Indeed, and the reason for this is that the cloners were very limited in what they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed to design their own motherboards, for example, but rather had to buy them from Apple.

First: that's misleading. They bought motherboard DESIGNS from Apple, not motherboards.

Second: let's just look at this for a second. One of the StarMax machines included a custom-made PCI card with ethernet and something else (video? SCSI?) on it. The drivers were from Motorola. When the next version of the Mac OS came out, the card simply stopped working because of the way they'd written the drivers. Apple was called over the next week by hundreds of irate StarMax owners.

But I'm sure that if they had just been able to design their own motherboards, everything would have just worked fine and there wouldn't have been any problems with compatibility or anything.

As for the idea that the PowerTowers were the end-all and be-all of Mac-hood, only two things to say. One: they were cheaply made. Things broke. Hardware failed. The case was a generic PC case with flimsy drive-bay doors with plastic fittings that broke off under the slightest bit of pressure. The actual basic design was nice, but the execution *sucked*. And two, especially at that year's MacWorld Expo, PowerComputing sold significantly below cost, because they wanted to entice as many people away from buying a high-end Mac and into their camp. When Apple had really hired people on to cover the low-end while they tried to get the high-end business. Now, you can decide that this was a slimy thing for Apple to do, to try to get someone to shore up their weaknesses rather than steal their best customers. And that's a valid point of view, I suppose. But when it turned around and Apple saw a whole lot of lost sales to people who otherwise would have definitely been buying the highest-end Mac kit, they got miffed.

I would've too. And having worked on a number of Mac clones back then, as a techie, I have to say that none of them were engineered even as well as the PM8500. Which in and of itself was one of the most bone-headed piece of engineering as I have ever seen in all my days.

But at least it was STURDY bone-headed engineering.

-fred

Re:I don't get Apple's reluctance to do this

[Bricklets]

Same thing with the iPods. People didn't understand before why Apple made iPods exclusive to Mac users. They were griping Apple for not realizing iPod's full potential. We all know how that's turning out. Apple bided its time and came out with a PC-compatible model when it was ready to take on the market.

Same can be said about iTunes. Just because Apple isn't opening iTMS today doesn't mean they don't have plans to do so in the near future. Everyone just needs to chill out a bit and be patient. Apple is probably biding their time again and tweaking iTunes into a better service until they're ready to take on the market.